That’s medical, my friend

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50, NUMBER 8

FEBRUARY 28, 2025

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION AGAINST HOSPITAL ARISING OUT OF INCIDENT INVOLVING THE DECEDENT WHO HAD JUST BEEN ADMITTED TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM UNDER THE BAKER ACT — CHAPTER 766 PRESUIT REQUIREMENTS APPLIED TO CLAIMS THAT HOSPITAL WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PROTECT THE DECEDENT FROM HIMSELF

Indian River Memorial Hospital v. Anderson, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D430 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 19, 2025):

The decedent was admitted to the hospital emergency room after making deep cuts to his body. The hospital had taken him into custody for involuntary examination under the Baker Act.

While unrestrained in a hospital bed in the hallway of the emergency room, the decedent grabbed a pair of scissors from a nurse’s pocket and ran towards several sheriff’s deputies who shot and killed him.

The decedent’s estate brought a wrongful death action against the hospital claiming negligence, vicarious liability, and gross negligence. The plaintiff claimed that the nurse leaving the scissors in her pocket was a security lapse and a breach of the hospital’s duty to ensure safety and security of mental health patients. The plaintiff likened the case to a premises liability case, alleging that the hospital created a dangerous condition.

The hospital moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion and agreed with the plaintiff that the complaint had carefully avoided alleging medical negligence and instead relied on ordinary negligence standards.

The appellate court reversed. It found that the propriety of the defendant’s conduct turned on an evaluation of a patient’s medical condition sounding the case in medical negligence and requiring compliance with pre-suit requirements.

Because the decedent died during the course of specific medical treatment, the acts that caused the injury were related to the hospital’s failure to restrain or properly supervise the decedent just after he was admitted for a Baker Act, and the hospital was acting as a medical provider and in the capacity of treating the decedent for his mental illness and physical injuries.

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PETITION TO VACATE DISMISSAL ORDER WHERE IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT’S INTENT TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS -RULE 1.070 (j) ONLY ALLOWS A TRIAL COURT TO DISMISS AN ACTION ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE AFTER NOTICE IS GIVEN

Pace v. Dixon, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D429 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 19, 2025):

The plaintiff sought to vacate an order dismissing his case based on his assertion that he never received the trial court’s notice of intent to dismiss. In that notice, the trial court gave the plaintiff an additional 30 days to effectuate service on the defendants pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.070(j).

The defendants agreed that the plaintiff never received the court’s notice. They argued instead that because the court had already vacated a dismissal order once based on the same reason (the plaintiff was in prison) and was given an additional 30 days to serve, his knowledge of the risk of dismissal somehow excused the fact that he did not receive the second notice of intent to dismiss.

However, the record showed that the plaintiff did file a notice of completed service of process and later filed a notice of inquiry within the 30-day extension period, claiming he had complied with the court’s order.

Pursuant to Rule 1.070(j) it is only after notice is given that a court on its own initiative may dismiss an action without prejudice. Because it was undisputed that the plaintiff never received the trial court’s notice, the trial court erred in not vacating its dismissal order.